Turtle Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 ____This story is growing into quite a controversy with Governors & members of Congress lineing up against Pres. Bush. ___On the face of it, it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of New York, Boston, etc. ports to any foreign company, let alone one known to fund terrorism.:doh: :) :) What do you think? If you're not from the US, would you welcome such foreign control in your home ports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 just so people have an idea...google tells me:National security interests require that measures be taken for the protection of vessels, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities of the United States from threats of espionage, foreign electronic intelligence collection, sabotage, intelligence collection operations directed against sensitive U.S. defense facilities from foreign vessels, and related subversive activities including the introduction into the United States of persons or materials in the pursuance of such activities. -NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION; DIRECTIVE NUMBER 200; December 4, 1965; U.S. PORT SECURITY PROGRAM The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.-Feb. 11, 2006, 10:29AM; Arab firm to oversee 6 U.S. port It shure is interesting, i tell ya that. Is the pres carving up the pie before he's out of the oven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 At least Bush is coherent he beliefs in economy dictatibg life and the arab company seems to be the best paying. Anyway, we have no ports so I can't really judge, but I don't really see a problem with giving the ports to foreign company. The terrorism thingy doesn't hold, firstly because for the 9.11 they had no ports and secondly (and more important) it's not like every arab company has terrorists inside. I actually think it might be a good thing to give these ports to the arab company, it might help to restore a bit of confidence and diminish the tension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 SOrry Turtle, I didn't read well, what do you mean by "known to fund terrorism"?How can that be proven? Still, I hold to my conclusion above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 On the face of it, it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of New York, Boston, etc. ports to any foreign companyYou are not handing over control, you are handing over operational responsibility, which is quite a different matter.Or, how about this, in contrast: it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of major military bases on our soil to any foreign government. May I take it that you will now write to your congressman demanding the US remove its bases from UK soil and from the lands of over one hundred other countries? You see the point. .........to any foreign company, let alone one known to fund terrorism?Where is your evidence that this company funds terrorism? Where is your evidence that the UAE funds terrorism. I not saying they don't, I'm asking for the evidence. I mean I already have the evidence of US funded terrorism - the IRA being a classic example, but I didn't rush out and burn my daughter's American passport as a consequence. Again, I hope you see my point. InfiniteNow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 ___Good points all; yes I see them. ___As to the UAE funding terrosism, what the report said is that the 9/11 terrosists funded their operation through UAE banks; I haven't found the original source yet, but it may have come from the 9/11 Commission.___While it is true the Coast Guard & Homeland Security etc. have charge of security at all ports in the US (sorry for the mis-stated title), giving over the operational control is as we said in the old days, "like getting a fox to care for the henhouse".___This is alarming a lot of Americans & someone told me that I have a government "of the people and by the people". This peep(le) wants his government to give this a long slow look. I haven't watched any news yet today, but last night it was shaping up as quite a bruhaha.___Sanctus, I believe the air-port in Geneva is technically & legally a 'port'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 There will be absolutly no operational changes as a result of this. One company bought another. They will use the existing employees in the existing jobs to continue operations, but channel the profits from said operation to UAE instead of GB. This is for the most part much ado about nothing. I would prefer that a US based firm were managing the operation, but only so that the profit would stay in the US. If I am the UAE, I would be looking for revenue streams like this so I am not living and dying by the price of oil, and its availability under my soil. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 So what's the story about stressing about the US giving control of these ports to a foreign entity? These harbours have been run by British companies for years, now. NOT US companies. So, telling Arab countries they can't run it, but we're more than happy if British companies run it, does not only reek of hypocracy, it is hypocracy in the worst possible way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 There will be absolutly no operational changes as a result of this. One company bought another. They will use the existing employees in the existing jobs to continue operations, but channel the profits from said operation to UAE instead of GB. This is for the most part much ado about nothing. I would prefer that a US based firm were managing the operation, but only so that the profit would stay in the US. If I am the UAE, I would be looking for revenue streams like this so I am not living and dying by the price of oil, and its availability under my soil. Bill ___Profits isn't the only thing they'll channel. Won't they now have access to all the manifests, schedules, destinations, security procedures, transportaion routes, & no end of previously unavailable information etc. etc.? Yes GB ran it before, but they have a long record as a staunch ally (not that they don't spy on us as well MI6). So we just accept that because UAE says "we'll be good" we allow it? I note this caused a stir in GB too, but they went ahead anyway.___Sure, I'm just a symptomatically paranoid american turtle, but is all of Congress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 ___Profits isn't the only thing they'll channel. Won't they now have access to all the manifests, schedules, destinations, security procedures, transportaion routes, & no end of previously unavailable information etc. etc.? Yes GB ran it before, but they have a long record as a staunch ally (not that they don't spy on us as well MI6). So we just accept that because UAE says "we'll be good" we allow it? I note this caused a stir in GB too, but they went ahead anyway.___Sure, I'm just a symptomatically paranoid american turtle, but is all of Congress?Excellent point on the info Turtle. I am not sure how that is controlled. I can only guess that thanks to Sarbains/Oxley they will have a properly documented process fo finding anything they need. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Watch for the hypocracy, boys... However this pans out, the political maneuvering and justifications will be fascinating to observe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 I don't think it's nessecarily that anyone is particularly worried about foreign control of the ports, or even that they are worred about this company, but that they were worried about the company this company keeps, so to speak. Let us say for instance that you have two friends. Bob comes from a good family, his father is a pillar of the community, he's never been in trouble with the law, his sister is your wife, and your kids play together all the time. Also, you have Bill. Bill is a great guy, and has never done anything to harm you, you trust him completely. But his father is a mob boss, he's got a bit of a checkered past, his sister is your crazy ex-girlfriend whom you have a restraining order against, and his kid mugged yours for theirs lunch money. Which one do you get to house sit for you when you're taking the family to Mt. Rushmore? It is guilt by association to an extent, but I don't think it's hypocrisy to say that you need some extra assurances from Bill. It's not that you don't trust Bill, it's that you don't trust the people he knows. I'm not against Dubai Ports running the ports, but I do think they require some extra monitoring. What if they have some middle manager who likes to overlook shipping manifests which are full of RPGs? I'm not saying it couldn't happen with Great Britain, but the statistically speaking, the hiring pool in the UAE is just more likely to include someone dangerous. I don't think it's prima facie a bad idea, but I do think it requires some scrutiny. Has Dubai Ports ever been involved with terrorism? Has it's CEO given millions to Hamas under the guise of "humanitarian aid?" Has it's middle management ever included someone who quit their job to go fight a jihad? I'm not saying we shouldn't ask these questions about British companies, but we should certaintly ask them about any company based in the Middle East. In other words, we shouldn't assume that everyone lies down with dogs - but we might oughta at least check for paw prints. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Security issues and history with various nations aside... I'm of the frame of mind that if our current US gov't leaders are doing it, that in itself is cause for apprehension and that I should ensure I research it further. I'm just bitter from some of the audacious bull excrement that has occurred these past few years... (and no, not just by one party or one group of people). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 SOrry Turtle, I didn't read well, what do you mean by "known to fund terrorism"?How can that be proven? Still, I hold to my conclusion above. ___Here's a link & a quote from it in support of my assertion:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185107,00.html Nonetheless, the FBI has also concluded that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Why the Hell Can't the U.S. Control it's own Frickin' Ports??Its Ridiculous!Why were the British controlling US ports to begin with?I thought the US was gonna' crack down after Sept. 11.I don't see any of that.FEMA is a Joke. The Borders are Wide Open. Countries hate us more than ever! Now were gonna let Middle Easterners control our shipping ports. Like I said. I love the US, but as soon as I get some Money, and finish my degree, I'm Moving to New Zealand or somewhere. :) This country isn't making any sense any more! Its a matter of National Security. Its a Matter of the US not being Completely owned by foreign investment. Next we'll hand off control of Airports to the Saudis. ... they're our pals too on the war on terror! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Why the Hell Can't the U.S. Control it's own Frickin' Ports??Its Ridiculous!Why were the British controlling US ports to begin with?I thought the US was gonna' crack down after Sept. 11.I don't see any of that.FEMA is a Joke. The Borders are Wide Open. Countries hate us more than ever! Now were gonna let Middle Easterners control our shipping ports. Like I said. I love the US, but as soon as I get some Money, and finish my degree, I'm Moving to New Zealand or somewhere. :) This country isn't making any sense any more! Its a matter of National Security. Its a Matter of the US not being Completely owned by foreign investment. Next we'll hand off control of Airports to the Saudis. ... they're our pals too on the war on terror!Vote and be active in politics. And when all hell breaks loose thank the founders for the 2nd Amendment. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Why the Hell Can't the U.S. Control it's own Frickin' Ports??Its Ridiculous!Why were the British controlling US ports to begin with?I thought the US was gonna' crack down after Sept. 11.I don't see any of that.FEMA is a Joke. The Borders are Wide Open. Countries hate us more than ever! Now were gonna let Middle Easterners control our shipping ports. Like I said. I love the US, but as soon as I get some Money, and finish my degree, I'm Moving to New Zealand or somewhere. :) This country isn't making any sense any more! Its a matter of National Security. Its a Matter of the US not being Completely owned by foreign investment.Next we'll hand off control of Airports to the Saudis. ... they're our pals too on the war on terror!Somebody needs a cocktail and a nice game of GO with a good friend. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.